Full Version: Hsu-fly Don't Bother Me
A really nice graphic here shows the fund raising habits between Hsu and Abamoff. A nice summary here and here.
I'll leave it to you then:
Who is more corrupt? Hsu or Abramoff?
Who is/was more damaging to the American process of electing officials?
Should either of these two be linked to political parties? Candidates?
I'll leave it to you then:
Who is more corrupt? Hsu or Abramoff?
Who is/was more damaging to the American process of electing officials?
Should either of these two be linked to political parties? Candidates?
BA-The thread title here just rocks, I think ti's one of the best yet. 
There appears to be a number of discrepancies about the whole Norman Hsu story that need to be clarified here. Media Matters has noted several of these problems:
-Lack of evidence that Hsu bundled money to give $1 million to candidates
-Misattributing a high dollar amount to William Paw, rather than to seven members of his family, which is what happened. Stories appear to paint this guy as a bad one who makes a meager salary, but who donated incredible sums of money. The hint of wrong doing here falls flat on it's face if the other members of the family did the donating, which a separate news story and a donation database points out.
-Donations to Obama were made to his senate campaign, not his presidential one.
It appears that Hsu was wanted for other reasons and that all things being equal, the political donation part was clean. I'll personally hold off on this until more evidence comes out.
There appears to be a number of discrepancies about the whole Norman Hsu story that need to be clarified here. Media Matters has noted several of these problems:
-Lack of evidence that Hsu bundled money to give $1 million to candidates
-Misattributing a high dollar amount to William Paw, rather than to seven members of his family, which is what happened. Stories appear to paint this guy as a bad one who makes a meager salary, but who donated incredible sums of money. The hint of wrong doing here falls flat on it's face if the other members of the family did the donating, which a separate news story and a donation database points out.
-Donations to Obama were made to his senate campaign, not his presidential one.
It appears that Hsu was wanted for other reasons and that all things being equal, the political donation part was clean. I'll personally hold off on this until more evidence comes out.
QUOTE(BaphometsAdvocate @ Sep 7 2007, 12:16 PM) 
A really nice graphic here shows the fund raising habits between Hsu and Abamoff. A nice summary here and here.
I'll leave it to you then:
Who is more corrupt? Hsu or Abramoff?
Who is/was more damaging to the American process of electing officials?
Should either of these two be linked to political parties? Candidates?
I'll leave it to you then:
Who is more corrupt? Hsu or Abramoff?
Who is/was more damaging to the American process of electing officials?
Should either of these two be linked to political parties? Candidates?
They are similar and we are not yet to the bottom of the Hsu story and the connection to the folks in CA.
This is one the liberal media (but not FOX) will do their best to “back page” ASAP.
QUOTE(nebraska29 @ Sep 7 2007, 01:23 PM)
BA-The thread title here just rocks, I think ti's one of the best yet.
-Misattributing a high dollar amount to William Paw, rather than to seven members of his family, which is what happened. Stories appear to paint this guy as a bad one who makes a meager salary, but who donated incredible sums of money. The hint of wrong doing here falls flat on it's face if the other members of the family did the donating, which a separate news story and a donation database points out.
-Misattributing a high dollar amount to William Paw, rather than to seven members of his family, which is what happened. Stories appear to paint this guy as a bad one who makes a meager salary, but who donated incredible sums of money. The hint of wrong doing here falls flat on it's face if the other members of the family did the donating, which a separate news story and a donation database points out.
Thanks... I spent more time on the title than the links
(Clearly.)On the bundling. There's a few more problems with Hsu/Paw than the fact that the Paw family might be good for 95K/yr combined and yet have donated close to 250,000USD so far to the Democrats. ***Let me be clear about pining Abramoffs and Hsus to political parties - I don't think it should be done - pinning them to candidates should!*** Hsu listed the Paw's home address as his own on at least one occasion. The Paws would need to have given about 20,000USD/yr to the Democrats EACH. Considering the modest home thet have in a FLIGHT PATH one would assume even as concerned Americans who just like donating money they would at least TRY to move. I don't think there's too much debate that Hsu is an extremely shady character and I wouldn't be terribly surprised to find out that the Paws never even saw the money they donated. On the plus side it looks like we'll be getting some answers very soon.
Well, I look at it this way- it is not neccesarily bad for making donations- it is what the expectations of those donations mean- like with Abramoff, it was a straight up bribe for legislation. Same with our own problems here with the oil companies buying senators for favorable votes on oil tax legislation.
The devil is in the details- was it illegal campaign contributions, trying to get around campaign laws, or was it outright bribes really, as in the case of Abramoff and things like casino gambling?
The devil is in the details- was it illegal campaign contributions, trying to get around campaign laws, or was it outright bribes really, as in the case of Abramoff and things like casino gambling?
QUOTE(CruisingRam @ Sep 7 2007, 03:18 PM)
Well, I look at it this way- it is not neccesarily bad for making donations- it is what the expectations of those donations mean- like with Abramoff, it was a straight up bribe for legislation. Same with our own problems here with the oil companies buying senators for favorable votes on oil tax legislation.
The devil is in the details- was it illegal campaign contributions, trying to get around campaign laws, or was it outright bribes really, as in the case of Abramoff and things like casino gambling?
The devil is in the details- was it illegal campaign contributions, trying to get around campaign laws, or was it outright bribes really, as in the case of Abramoff and things like casino gambling?
This story's starting to get interesting. The WSJ has been doing most of the reporting on this, but the Los Angeles Times (not exactly right-wing media) reported yesterday:
QUOTE(Los Angeles Times @ Sept. 11, 2007)
In recent days, the FBI has been talking to participants in a current Hsu business venture, questioning whether it was a legitimate bridge-loan investment pool, as those involved were told, or a Ponzi scheme similar to the one Hsu ran in the past.
. . .
Questions about Hsu were first raised in June by an Irvine businessman, Jack Cassidy, who contacted the Clinton campaign and party officials about his suspicions, which he had heard about through a friend.
"There is a significant probability that a man using the name of Norman Hsu is running a Ponzi scheme," Cassidy wrote to a California Democratic Party official on June 18 in an e-mail obtained by The Times. Describing the deal he understood Hsu was offering to investors, he wrote: "The math does not work!"
The party official passed Cassidy's concerns to [campaign finance director for the Western states] Samantha Wolf, who rejected them. "I can tell you with 100 certainty that Norman Hsu is NOT involved in a ponzi scheme," Wolf wrote."He is COMPLETELY legit."
On June 20, Cassidy sent an e-mail directly to Wolf.
"I am more than ever convinced that a man claiming to be a big fundraiser for Hillary Clinton is running a Ponzi scheme," he wrote. He said he feared that an associate "may lose her home" because of her participation in the scheme and cautioned Wolf that Hsu may be "using your good name in vane."
Cassidy said Wolf did not respond to the e-mail warning.
. . .
Questions about Hsu were first raised in June by an Irvine businessman, Jack Cassidy, who contacted the Clinton campaign and party officials about his suspicions, which he had heard about through a friend.
"There is a significant probability that a man using the name of Norman Hsu is running a Ponzi scheme," Cassidy wrote to a California Democratic Party official on June 18 in an e-mail obtained by The Times. Describing the deal he understood Hsu was offering to investors, he wrote: "The math does not work!"
The party official passed Cassidy's concerns to [campaign finance director for the Western states] Samantha Wolf, who rejected them. "I can tell you with 100 certainty that Norman Hsu is NOT involved in a ponzi scheme," Wolf wrote."He is COMPLETELY legit."
On June 20, Cassidy sent an e-mail directly to Wolf.
"I am more than ever convinced that a man claiming to be a big fundraiser for Hillary Clinton is running a Ponzi scheme," he wrote. He said he feared that an associate "may lose her home" because of her participation in the scheme and cautioned Wolf that Hsu may be "using your good name in vane."
Cassidy said Wolf did not respond to the e-mail warning.
The Wall Street Journal reports today that one of Hsu's unhappy investors was Joel Rosenman, who was one of the producers of the Woodstock Festival in 1969.
QUOTE(Wall Street Journal @ Sept. 12, 2007)
That has been one of the big questions hanging over the prominent Democratic fund-raiser, as reports have surfaced about hundreds of thousands of dollars he made in political donations, plus lavish parties, fancy apartments and a $2 million bond he posted to get out of jail earlier this month.
New documents reviewed by The Wall Street Journal may help point to an answer: A company controlled by Mr. Hsu recently received $40 million from a Madison Avenue investment fund run by Joel Rosenman, who was one of the creators of the Woodstock rock festival in 1969. That money, Mr. Rosenman told investors this week, is missing.
. . .
Mr. Rosenman's partner, Ms. Cheng, met Mr. Hsu while working for an Internet company in 2000. She began investing in one of his businesses and made a profit, according to someone familiar with the matter. In 2002, she joined JR Capital and introduced Mr. Rosenman to Mr. Hsu. That year, Mr. Rosenman invested and also made a profit. He began telling friends and relatives about the investment opportunity.
Mr. Rosenman described the deal in a pitch letter he provided to prospective investors for Source Financing Investors, which he launched in 2005. The investment pool would "lend to U.S. private label designers that needed interim financing to fill orders for a select group of well-known, high-end U.S. apparel retailers." Since 2001, he writes, "the return of these short-term (typically 4˝ months) loans has been no less than 40%."
In a "step-by-step" outline of a typical transaction prepared for investors, Source Financing describes the way a deal worked with Mr. Hsu. Source Financing would agree to provide bridge loans for seasonal high-ticket, high-quality retail goods made in China for exclusive brand names, according to investors. Mr. Hsu told the company that he would obtain from Chinese manufacturers a price quote for apparel production. He would then add a mark-up and give the quote to a high-end buyer in the U.S.
New documents reviewed by The Wall Street Journal may help point to an answer: A company controlled by Mr. Hsu recently received $40 million from a Madison Avenue investment fund run by Joel Rosenman, who was one of the creators of the Woodstock rock festival in 1969. That money, Mr. Rosenman told investors this week, is missing.
. . .
Mr. Rosenman's partner, Ms. Cheng, met Mr. Hsu while working for an Internet company in 2000. She began investing in one of his businesses and made a profit, according to someone familiar with the matter. In 2002, she joined JR Capital and introduced Mr. Rosenman to Mr. Hsu. That year, Mr. Rosenman invested and also made a profit. He began telling friends and relatives about the investment opportunity.
Mr. Rosenman described the deal in a pitch letter he provided to prospective investors for Source Financing Investors, which he launched in 2005. The investment pool would "lend to U.S. private label designers that needed interim financing to fill orders for a select group of well-known, high-end U.S. apparel retailers." Since 2001, he writes, "the return of these short-term (typically 4˝ months) loans has been no less than 40%."
In a "step-by-step" outline of a typical transaction prepared for investors, Source Financing describes the way a deal worked with Mr. Hsu. Source Financing would agree to provide bridge loans for seasonal high-ticket, high-quality retail goods made in China for exclusive brand names, according to investors. Mr. Hsu told the company that he would obtain from Chinese manufacturers a price quote for apparel production. He would then add a mark-up and give the quote to a high-end buyer in the U.S.
The Washington Post has even more details today. Hsu also donated to the [Bill] Clinton Global Initiative, which "allowed him to mingle with the corporate executives typically attracted by the former president's charitable endeavors." I wonder if his political fundraising wasn't intended to attract attention -- not the kind of attention it's getting now, but a certain credibility and name-recognition among the sorts of people who can afford to invest a few million dollars in Hsu's projects. If he really was running another Ponzi scheme, he'd always need new investors...
Who is more corrupt? Hsu or Abramoff?
Who is/was more damaging to the American process of electing officials?
Too soon to say. Hsu may have been just as corrupt, but less corrupting to the political process. So far nobody's claiming that he was trying to influence policy.
Should either of these two be linked to political parties? Candidates?
I'd say the responsibility falls on the candidates to vet their contributors. It's not fair to paint all Democrats as corrupt because of Hsu, or all Republicans as corrupt because of Abramoff. Of course, people will make generalizations as stories accumulate.
AS for wether the Hsu bidness is more corrupt than Abramoff bidness - you need to ask a couple questions
Why do we have campaign laws? - a big portion would be transparency of the senators business dealings to make sure that they are not lining thier pockets by trading votes for profit. In other words- to keep senators and legislators beholden and contracted out to the highest bidder.
With the Hsu matter- we are looking at Hsu wanting to get close to campaigns with powerful poeple around in order to get investors in his Ponzi scheme- bad enough on it's own- but no attempt to influence policy and "buy" votes.
The Abramoff matter- out right bribery for votes- the senators were not just allowing "access" to them in rewards for campaign funds- they were outright influencing policy that would effect them. A far, far worse crime!
So really, the two are apples and oranges. Being a victim of a con-artist shows stupidity and incompetance of a senator or legislator-
but accepting bribes truly makes the Senator or Legislator an actual criminal. One is a dupe, the other, a common criminal on the take.
Why do we have campaign laws? - a big portion would be transparency of the senators business dealings to make sure that they are not lining thier pockets by trading votes for profit. In other words- to keep senators and legislators beholden and contracted out to the highest bidder.
With the Hsu matter- we are looking at Hsu wanting to get close to campaigns with powerful poeple around in order to get investors in his Ponzi scheme- bad enough on it's own- but no attempt to influence policy and "buy" votes.
The Abramoff matter- out right bribery for votes- the senators were not just allowing "access" to them in rewards for campaign funds- they were outright influencing policy that would effect them. A far, far worse crime!
So really, the two are apples and oranges. Being a victim of a con-artist shows stupidity and incompetance of a senator or legislator-
but accepting bribes truly makes the Senator or Legislator an actual criminal. One is a dupe, the other, a common criminal on the take.
QUOTE
With the Hsu matter- we are looking at Hsu wanting to get close to campaigns with powerful poeple around in order to get investors in his Ponzi scheme- bad enough on it's own- but no attempt to influence policy and "buy" votes.
And you know this how? Do you think he gave the money out of the goodness of his heart and in the meetings with Hillary he never asked for a thing? Optimistic at best sir.
It has also been pointed out that the “ignorance” plea by DNC is hollow in that a simple internet search would have turned up this man as wanted. Better to just keep the money until caught and then give it back.
A blogger named Flip Pidot is still digging into Norman Hsu's contributions, and others with a suspiciously similar history of contributions. He's out-reporting even the WSJ at this point.
Flip's found some other interesting connections between Hsu and Fred Hochberg, a man who served in Bill Clinton's cabinet. Follow the link down the rabbit hole.
QUOTE(Suitably Flip)
1) Ever since Hsu became a major fundraiser, there have been notable similarities between his and Hochberg/Lillian Vernon's contributions that strain the limits of coincidence. Not only is there significant overlap among several far-flung candidates who wouldn't typically be of much interest to New York businessmen, but the size and timing of many of the transactions further suggest the efforts are coordinated.
10/24/05: Fred Hochberg contributes $2,000 to Ted Kennedy.
10/24/05: A Hsu donor in California contributes $2,100 to Ted Kennedy.
6/6/06: Lillian Vernon contributes $25,000 to Eliot Spitzer.
6/7/06: Norman Hsu contributes $25,000 to Eliot Spitzer.
1/26/07: Fred Hochberg contributes $2,300 to Hillary Clinton.
1/26/07: Hsu and various Hsu donors across the country make a total of 8 contributions to Hillary Clinton ranging from $1,900-2,100 each.
3/28/07: Hsu and various Hsu donors make a total of 11 contributions to Clinton, totaling $23,400 (most at the $2,300 maximum).
3/31/07: Lillian Vernon makes 2 contributions to Clinton, totalling $4,600.
5/3/07: Norman Hsu makes 2 contributions to Mark Pryor, totalling $2,500.
5/3/07: Fred Hochberg contributes $2,300 to Mark Pryor.
6/5/07: Norman Hsu contributes $4,950 to Christine Quinn, his first and only direct contribution to Quinn.
6/5/07: Lillian Vernon contributes $110 to Chrinstine Quinn, for the first time in 4 years.
Flip's found some other interesting connections between Hsu and Fred Hochberg, a man who served in Bill Clinton's cabinet. Follow the link down the rabbit hole.
This is a simplified version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.